Ramkrishna Forgings Limited vs Ravindra Loonkar, Resolution Profession of Acil Limited & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 November 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.1527 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 672 : 2023 INSC 1013

Issue for consideration

The moot question involved is the extent of the jurisdiction and powers of the Adjudicating Authority to go on the issue of revaluation in the background of the admitted and undisputed factual position that no objection was raised by any quarter with regard to any deficiency/irregularity, either by the RP or the appellant or the CoC, in finally approving the Resolution Plan which was sent to the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT for approval.

Headnote

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – The Adjudicating Authority-NCLT by order dated 01.09.2021, the application seeking approval of a Resolution Plan for ACIL or corporate debtor was kept in abeyance while directing the official liquidator (OL) to carry out a re-valuation of the assets of the corporate debtor and provide exact figures/value of the assets and exact value details – NCLAT upheld the order of the NCLT – Propriety:

Held: If the CoC, including the FC(s) to whom money is due from the Corporate Debtor, had undertaken repeated negotiations with

Cause-title should correctly include ‘Resolution Professional’ instead of ‘Resolution Profession’

R. P. OF ACIL LTD.

the appellant with regard to the Resolution Plan and thereafter, with a majority of 88.56% votes, approved the final negotiated Resolution Plan of the appellant, which the RP, in turn, presented to the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT for approval, unless the same was failing the tests of the provisions of the Code, especially Sections 30 & 31, no interference was warranted – It is worthwhile to note that the Adjudicating Authority has jurisdiction only u/s. 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down u/s. 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed – The NCLT’s jurisdiction and powers as the Adjudicating Authority under the Code, flow only from the Code and the Regulations thereunder – The order dated 01.09.2021 by the NCLT cannot withstand judicial scrutiny, either on facts or in law – Also, the said order is cryptic and bereft of details – Accordingly, the order dated 01.09.2021 of the NCLT and impugned judgment of the NCLAT are set aside. [Paras 27,32,34]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Jaypee Kensington Boulevard Apartments Welfare Association v NBCC (India) Limited (2022) 1 SCC 401; Pratap Technocrats Private Limited v Monitoring Committee of Reliance Infratel Limited (2021) 10 SCC 623 – relied on.

Maharashtra Seamless Limited v Padmanabhan Venkatesh [2020]

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. R. P. OF ACIL LTD. 2. The present appeal under Section 62 2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) is directed against the Judgment dated 19.01.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “NCLAT”) in Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.845 of 2021 which has upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal3) [

View Subscription Plans →